Immersion in water in pregnancy, labour and birth

Vaginal Birth at Term - Part 1. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/083, December 2020)

Purpose This guideline aims to summarize the current state of knowledge about vaginal birth at term. The guideline focuses on definitions of the physiological stages of labor as well as differentiating between various pathological developments and conditions. It also assesses the need for intervention and the options to avoid interventions. This first part presents recommendations and statements about patient information and counselling, general patient care, monitoring of patients, pain management and quality control measures for vaginal birth. Methods The German recommendations largely reproduce the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) CG 190 guideline "Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies". Other international guidelines were also consulted in specific cases when compiling this guideline. In addition, a systematic search and analysis of the literature was carried out using PICO questions, if this was considered necessary, and other systematic reviews and individual studies were taken into account. For easier comprehension, the assessment tools of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) were used to evaluate the quality of the additionally consulted studies. Otherwise, the GRADE system was used for the NICE guideline and the evidence reports of the IQWiG were used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Recommendations Recommendations and statements were formulated based on identified evidence and/or a structured consensus.

Vaginal Birth at Term - Part 2. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/083, December 2020)

Purpose This guideline aims to summarize the current state of knowledge about vaginal birth at term. The guideline focuses on definitions of the physiological stages of labor as well as differentiating between various pathological developments and conditions. It also assesses the need for intervention and the options to avoid interventions. The second part of this guideline presents recommendations and statements on care during the dilation and expulsion stages as well as during the placental/postnatal stage. Methods The German recommendations largely reproduce the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) CG190 guideline "Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies". Other international guidelines were also consulted in individual cases when compiling this guideline. In addition, a systematic search and analysis of the literature was carried out using PICO questions where necessary, and other systematic reviews and individual studies were taken into account. For easier comprehension, the assessment tools of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) were used to evaluate the quality of additionally consulted studies. Otherwise, the GRADE system was used for the NICE guideline, and the evidence reports of the IQWiG were used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Recommendations Recommendations and statements were formulated based on identified evidence and/or a structured consensus.

Comparison of Spinal Versus Epidural Analgesia for Vaginal Delivery: A Randomized Double Blinded Clinical Trial

Background

Recently, one of the problems in developing countries is pregnant women who insist on cesarean section for fear of painful vaginal delivery. There are various methods to reduce labor pain, including medical and non-medical methods. Neuraxial analgesia is classified as one of the best ways to reduce labor pain. Epidural analgesia is a classic and popular procedure to decrease labor pain. Nevertheless, other methods, such as spinal or combined spinal-epidural analgesia, is more effective compared with the epidural.

Objectives

In this study, we investigated a single intrathecal versus epidural injection in pregnant women during childbirth.

Methods

In our research, after obtaining informed consent, the patients were randomly assigned to two equal groups: epidural and spinal. Each group contained 50 parturient women in advanced labor. In the epidural group, 2.5 mL isobaric bupivacaine 0.5%, sufentanil (0.2 mcg/mL), and 7 mL saline 0.9% were injected by an 18-gauge Tuohy needle at the L4-5 or L5-S1 intervertebral space, and in the spinal group, 0.5 mL isobaric bupivacaine 0.5%, 2.5 mcg sufentanil, and 0.5 mL saline 0.9% were injected by a 25-gauge pencil-point Quincke needle at the L4-5 or L5-S1 intervertebral spaces. For pain intensity, the visual analog scale (VAS) was used at serial intervals, and other variables, such as the onset and duration of analgesia, hypotension, neonatal APGAR score, fetal heart rate (FHR) changes, and other variables were examined.

Results

The mean time to onset analgesic effect was 4.6 min in the spinal group compared with 12.5 minutes in the epidural (P < 0.001). Duration of analgesia was 121 minutes in the spinal group compared with 104 min in the epidural group (P < 0.001). The time to reach the maximum block was 8.4 min in the spinal group vs. 22.2 min in the epidural group (P < 0.001). The duration of the second and third gestation stages was the same in both groups.

Conclusions

Spinal analgesia is short and easy to perform and does not require advanced equipment and technical experience. Spinal analgesia can be a good option for labor analgesia and leads to achieving a lower pain score than epidural analgesia.

Paracetamol/acetaminophen (single administration) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period

BACKGROUND

Perineal pain is a common but poorly studied adverse outcome following childbirth. Pain may result from perineal trauma due to bruising, spontaneous tears, surgical incisions (episiotomies), or in association with operative vaginal births (ventouse or forceps-assisted births). This is an update of a review last published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of a single administration of paracetamol (acetaminophen) used in the relief of acute postpartum perineal pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (9 December 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, comparing paracetamol to placebo. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. Data from abstracts would be included only if authors had confirmed in writing that the data to be included in the review had come from the final analysis and would not change.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed each study for inclusion and extracted data. One review author reviewed the decisions and confirmed calculations for pain relief scores. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This update identified no new trials so the results remain unchanged. However, by applying the GRADE assessment of the evidence, the interpretation of main results differed from previous version of this review. We identified 10 studies involving 2044 women, but all these studies involved either three or four groups, looking at differing drugs or doses. We have only included the 1301 women who were in the paracetamol versus placebo arms of the studies. Of these, five studies (482 women) assessed 500 mg to 650 mg and six studies (797 women) assessed 1000 mg of paracetamol. One study assessed 650 mg and 1000 mg compared with placebo and contributed to both comparisons. We used a random-effects meta-analysis because of the clinical variability among studies. Studies were from the 1970s to the early 1990s, and there was insufficient information to assess the risk of bias adequately, hence the findings need to be interpreted within this context. The certainty of the evidence for the two primary outcomes on which data were available was assessed as low, downgraded for overall unclear risk of bias and for heterogeneity (I² statistic 60% or greater). More women may experience pain relief with paracetamol compared with placebo (average risk ratio (RR) 2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.89; 10 trials, 1279 women), and fewer women may need additional pain relief with paracetamol compared with placebo (average RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55; 8 trials, 1132 women). However, the certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded for unclear overall risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity. One study used the higher dose of paracetamol (1000 mg) and reported maternal drug adverse effects. There may be little or no difference in the incidence of nausea (average RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.66; 1 trial, 232 women; low-certainty evidence), or sleepiness (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.30; 1 trial, 232 women; low-certainty evidence). No other maternal adverse events were reported. None of the studies assessed neonatal drug adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of paracetamol may improve perineal pain relief following vaginal birth, and may reduce the need for additional pain relief. Potential adverse effects for both women and neonates were not appropriately assessed. Any further trials should also address the gaps in evidence concerning maternal outcomes such as satisfaction with postnatal care, maternal functioning/well-being (emotional attachment, self-efficacy, competence, autonomy, confidence, self-care, coping skills) and neonatal drug adverse effects.

Immersion in water during labour and birth

BACKGROUND

Water immersion during labour and birth is increasingly popular and is becoming widely accepted across many countries, and particularly in midwifery-led care settings. However, there are concerns around neonatal water inhalation, increased requirement for admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), maternal and/or neonatal infection, and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). This is an update of a review last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of water immersion during labour and/or birth (first, second and third stage of labour) on women and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 July 2017), and reference lists of retrieved trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing water immersion with no immersion, or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management during labour and/or birth in healthy low-risk women at term gestation with a singleton fetus. Quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 15 trials conducted between 1990 and 2015 (3663 women): eight involved water immersion during the first stage of labour; two during the second stage only; four during the first and second stages of labour, and one comparing early versus late immersion during the first stage of labour. No trials evaluated different baths/pools, or third-stage labour management. All trials were undertaken in a hospital labour ward setting, with a varying degree of medical intervention considered as routine practice. No study was carried out in a midwifery-led care setting. Most trial authors did not specify the parity of women. Trials were subject to varying degrees of bias: the intervention could not be blinded and there was a lack of information about randomisation, and whether analyses were undertaken by intention-to-treat.Immersion in water versus no immersion (first stage of labour)There is probably little or no difference in spontaneous vaginal birth between immersion and no immersion (82% versus 83%; risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.04; 6 trials; 2559 women; moderate-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (14% versus 12%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05; 6 trials; 2559 women; low-quality evidence); and caesarean section (4% versus 5%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.79; 7 trials; 2652 women; low-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of immersion on estimated blood loss (mean difference (MD) -14.33 mL, 95% CI -63.03 to 34.37; 2 trials; 153 women; very low-quality evidence) and third- or fourth-degree tears (3% versus 3%; RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.18; 4 trials; 2341 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was a small reduction in the risk of using regional analgesia for women allocated to water immersion from 43% to 39% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; 5 trials; 2439 women; moderate-quality evidence). Perinatal deaths were not reported, and there is insufficient evidence to determine the impact on neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions (6% versus 8%; average RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.97; 2 trials; 1511 infants; I² = 36%; low-quality evidence), or on neonatal infection rates (1% versus 1%; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.94; 5 trials; 1295 infants; very low-quality evidence).Immersion in water versus no immersion (second stage of labour)There were no clear differences between groups for spontaneous vaginal birth (97% versus 99%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 120 women; 1 trial; low-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (2% versus 2%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence); caesarean section (2% versus 1%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence), and NICU admissions (11% versus 9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.59; 2 trials; 291 women; very low-quality evidence). Use of regional analgesia was not relevant to the second stage of labour. Third- or fourth-degree tears, and estimated blood loss were not reported in either trial. No trial reported neonatal infection but did report neonatal temperature less than 36.2°C at birth (9% versus 9%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.20; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), greater than 37.5°C at birth (6% versus 15%; RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.73 to 9.35; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), and fever reported in first week (5% versus 2%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.82; 1 trial; 171 infants; very low-quality evidence), with no clear effect between groups being observed. One perinatal death occurred in the immersion group in one trial (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.20; 1 trial; 120 infants; very low-quality evidence). The infant was born to a mother with HIV and the cause of death was deemed to be intrauterine infection.There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the baby or woman from either the first or second stage of labour.Only one trial (200 women) compared early and late entry into the water and there were insufficient data to show any clear differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In healthy women at low risk of complications there is moderate to low-quality evidence that water immersion during the first stage of labour probably has little effect on mode of birth or perineal trauma, but may reduce the use of regional analgesia. The evidence for immersion during the second stage of labour is limited and does not show clear differences on maternal or neonatal outcomes intensive care. There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring or giving birth in water. Available evidence is limited by clinical variability and heterogeneity across trials, and no trial has been conducted in a midwifery-led setting.

Effectiveness and safety of moderate-intensity aerobic water exercise during pregnancy for reducing use of epidural analgesia during labor: protocol for a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia during labor can provide effective pain relief, but can also lead to adverse effects. The practice of moderate exercise during pregnancy is associated with an increased level of endorphins in the blood, and this could also provide pain relief during labor. Aerobic water exercises, rather than other forms of exercise, do not negatively impact articulations, reduce edema, blood pressure, and back pain, and increase diuresis. We propose a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a moderate water exercise program during pregnancy on the need for epidural analgesia during labor.

METHODS

A multi-center, parallel, randomized, evaluator blinded, controlled trial in a primary care setting. We will randomised 320 pregnant women (14 to 20 weeks gestation) who have low risk of complications to a moderate water exercise program or usual care.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this research will contribute toward understanding of the effects of a physical exercise program on pain and the need for analgesia during labor.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry identifier: 14097513 register on 04 September 2017. Retrospectively registered.

The Effect of Two-Staged Warm Compress on the Pain Duration of First and Second Labor Stages and Apgar Score in Prim Gravida Women: a Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of two-stage warm compress technique on the pain duration of the first and second labor stages and neonatal outcomes.

Methods: The clinical trial was done on 150 women (75 subjects in each groups) in Shiraz-affiliated hospitals in 2012 A two-staged warm compress was done for 15-20 minutes in the first and second labor phase (cervical dilatation of 7 and 10 cm with zero status) while the control group received hospital routine care. The duration of labor and Apgar score were evaluated.

Results: According to t-test, the average of labor duration was lower in the intervention group compared to the control group at the second stage. However, there was no significant difference for labor duration at the first stage and the first and fifth minute Apgar score.

Conclusion: According to the result, this intervention seems a good method for decreasing labor duration at the second stage of parturition.

Snoezelen Room and Childbirth Outcome: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background:

One of the strategies for a good outcome and pain free childbearing is to design the delivery room.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of snoezelen room on childbearing outcome such as pain intensity, duration of labor, and perinea status in nulliparous women.

Patients and Methods:

This study was a randomized controlled clinical trial consists of 100 childbearing women. They were randomly divided into 2 groups. The experimental group went to snoezelen room when their cervix dilation was 4 cm, while the control group went to physiologic delivery room with the same cervix dilation.

Results:

The mean ± SD of VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) pain intensity of the experimental and control groups before the intervention were 5.1 ± 1.95 and 5.58 ± 1.62, respectively (P = 0.13). The mean ± SD of VAS pain intensity scores of the experimental and control groups after 3 hours spending in their assigned rooms were 5.26 ± 0.86 and 9.56 ± 1.48, respectively (P = 0.01). The mean ± SD of the first stage scores of the experimental and control groups were 6.95 ± 0.97 and 8.41 ± 0.67, respectively (P = 0.042). About 92% of participants’ intervention vs. 66% of control participants had perinea laceration (P = 0.041).

Conclusions:

According to the findings of the present study, distracting senses in snoezelen room decreases mother’s pain intensity, the length of labor, and incidence of episiotomy.

Effects of Passive Hydrotherapy WATSU (WaterShiatsu) in the Third Trimester of Pregnancy: Results of a Controlled Pilot Study

Background. WATSU (WaterShiatsu) is a complementary therapeutic treatment method comprising passive stretches and massage techniques administered in 35°C warm water. Pregnant women claim safe methods to reduce pain, stress, and fatigue. Therefore, we conducted a pilot study evaluating the effects of WATSU on pregnancy-related complaints in third trimester pregnant women. Methods. Nine healthy pregnant women at gestational week ≥34 were included in an intervention group (receiving WATSU) and compared to eight women in a passive control group (receiving no treatment). WATSU was performed on days 1 and 4 of the study, accompanied by ultrasound examinations. Outcomes include physiological and psychometric as well as qualitative data. Participants in the control group completed questionnaires only. Results. WATSU was found to significantly lower participants' levels of stress and pain and to improve their mental health-related quality of life and mood. In comparison to the passive control group, participants in the intervention group reported reduction in perceived stress from day 1 to day 8 (P = 0.036, Cohen's f = 0.57). Qualitative data indicate that WATSU was appreciated as enjoyable and deeply relaxing. No negative side effects were reported. Conclusion. Our findings support the notion that WATSU yields therapeutic benefits for pregnant women and warrant further research. This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01708018.

Paracetamol/acetaminophen (single administration) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period

BACKGROUND

Perineal pain is a common but poorly studied adverse outcome following childbirth. Pain may result from perineal trauma due to bruising, spontaneous tears, surgical incisions (episiotomies), or in association with operative births (ventouse or forceps assisted births).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of a single administration of paracetamol (acetaminophen) systemic drugs used in the relief of acute postpartum perineal pain

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register on 6 November 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing paracetamol (acetaminophen) in a single dose compared with placebo for women with early postpartum perineal pain. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed each paper for inclusion and extracted data. One review author reviewed the decisions and confirmed calculations for pain relief scores.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new trials from the updated search so the results remain unchanged as follows.We have included 10 studies describing two dosages of paracetamol. Of these, five studies (526 women) assessed 500 mg to 650 mg and six studies (841 women) assessed 1000 mg of paracetamol. We chose to use random-effects meta-analyses because of the heterogeneity in dosage used. Studies were from the 1970s to the early 1990s, and there was insufficient information to assess the risk of bias adequately, hence the findings need to be interpreted within this context.More women experienced pain relief with paracetamol compared with placebo (average risk ratio (RR) 2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.89, 10 studies, 1279 women). In addition, there were significantly fewer women having additional pain relief with paracetamol compared with placebo (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55, eight studies, 1132 women). Both the 500 mg to 650 mg and 1000 mg doses were effective in providing more pain relief than placebo.Maternal and neonatal potential adverse drug effects were not assessed in any of the included studies. Indeed few secondary outcomes were assessed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More women experienced pain relief, and fewer had additional pain relief, with paracetamol compared with placebo, although potential adverse effects were not assessed and generally the quality of studies was unclear.

Complementary and alternative approaches to pain relief during labor

This review evaluated the effect of complementary and alternative medicine on pain during labor with conventional scientific methods using electronic data bases through 2006 were used. Only randomized controlled trials with outcome measures for labor pain were kept for the conclusions. Many studies did not meet the scientific inclusion criteria. According to the randomized control trials, we conclude that for the decrease of labor pain and/or reduction of the need for conventional analgesic methods: (i) There is an efficacy found for acupressure and sterile water blocks. (ii) Most results favored some efficacy for acupuncture and hydrotherapy. (iii) Studies for other complementary or alternative therapies for labor pain control have not shown their effectiveness.

Analgesia in Obstetrics

Background: An effective relief of labour pain has become an important part of obstetric medicine. Therefore regional nerve blocks, systemic analgesic and non-pharmacologic techniques are commonly used. This review article gives a summary of pathophysiology and anatomy of labour pain as well as advantages, disadvantages, risks and adverse reactions of analgesic techniques in newborns and parturients. Methods: We performed a selective literature search in Medline via PubMed using the search-terms "Analgesia" and "Obstetrics". We also included the current guidelines of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Results: PDA and CSE are safe techniques for the relief of labour pain if contraindications are excluded. The risk for instrumental delivery but not for caesarean section is increased under neuraxial analgesia. PDA and CSE should be performed in an early stage of labour using low doses of local anaesthetics if possible. It is not necessary to wait for a defined cervical dilatation before starting neuraxial analgesia. Anesthesiologists and obstetricians should inform patients as soon as possible before the situation of stress during labour. Systemic opioid analgesia is a possible alternative for neuraxial techniques. Because of possible side effects systemic remifentanil analgesia should only be performed under continuous monitoring. Several nonpharmacologic methods can also relieve labour pain, but results of studies about their effectiveness are inconsistent.

The Evidence for Physiologic Management of the Active Phase of the First Stage of Labor

The active phase of first stage labor is generally defined as the period between 3 cm to 4 cm to complete cervical dilatation, in the presence of regular uterine contractions. Most women will experience this portion of labor within hospital obstetric units, where care commonly features restriction to bed, electronic fetal monitoring, early treatment of "slow" labors, and few pain management options beyond epidurals and narcotics. However, the available evidence on appropriate care for healthy childbearing women favors activity in labor, intermittent auscultation, patience from caregivers, and nonpharmacologic methods of pain relief. This article reviews the evidence for care practices that support physiologic labor. Modifying intrapartum care to reflect current evidence will improve women's health, and will require a multilevel approach and consistent midwifery demonstration of the model.

Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery

BACKGROUND

Instrumental or assisted vaginal birth is commonly used to expedite birth for the benefit of either mother or baby or both. It is sometimes associated with significant complications for both mother and baby. The choice of instrument may be influenced by clinical circumstances, operator choice and availability of specific instruments.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate different instruments in terms of achieving a vaginal birth and avoiding significant morbidity for mother and baby.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of assisted vaginal delivery using different instruments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted the data, and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies (6597 women) in this review. Forceps were less likely than the ventouse to fail to achieve a vaginal birth with the allocated instrument (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.94). However, with forceps there was a trend to more caesarean sections, and significantly more third- or fourth-degree tears (with or without episiotomy), vaginal trauma, use of general anaesthesia, and flatus incontinence or altered continence. Facial injury was more likely with forceps (RR 5.10, 95% CI 1.12 to 23.25). Using a random-effects model because of heterogeneity between studies, there was a trend towards fewer cases of cephalhaematoma with forceps (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.11).Among different types of ventouse, the metal cup was more likely to result in a successful vaginal birth than the soft cup, with more cases of scalp injury and cephalhaematoma. The hand-held ventouse was associated with more failures than the metal ventouse, and a trend to fewer than the soft ventouse.Overall forceps or the metal cup appear to be most effective at achieving a vaginal birth, but with increased risk of maternal trauma with forceps and neonatal trauma with the metal cup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a recognised place for forceps and all types of ventouse in clinical practice. The role of operator training with any choice of instrument must be emphasised. The increasing risks of failed delivery with the chosen instrument from forceps to metal cup to hand-held to soft cup vacuum, and trade-offs between risks of maternal and neonatal trauma identified in this review need to be considered when choosing an instrument.

Advances in labor analgesia

The pain of childbirth is arguably the most severe pain most women will endure in their lifetimes. The pain of the early first stage of labor arises from dilation of the lower uterine segment and cervix. Pain from the late first stage and second stage of labor arises from descent of the fetus in the birth canal, resulting in distension and tearing of tissues in the vagina and perineum. An array of regional nerve blocks, systemic analgesic, and nonpharmacologic techniques are currently used for labor analgesia. Nonpharmacologic methods are commonly used, but the effectiveness of these techniques generally lacks rigorous scientific study. Continuous labor support has been shown to decrease the use of pharmacologic analgesia and shorten labor. Intradermal water injections decrease back labor pain. Neuraxial labor analgesia (most commonly epidural or combined spinal-epidural) is the most effective method of pain relief during childbirth, and the only method that provides complete analgesia without maternal or fetal sedation. Current techniques commonly combine a low dose of local anesthetic (bupivacaine or ropivacaine) with a lipid soluble opioid (fentanyl or sufentanil). Neuraxial analgesia does not increase the rate of cesarean delivery compared to systemic opioid analgesia; however, dense neuraxial analgesia may increase the risk of instrumental vaginal delivery.

Paracetamol/acetaminophen (single administration) for perineal pain in the early postpartum period

BACKGROUND

Perineal pain is a common but poorly studied adverse outcome following childbirth. Pain may result from perineal trauma due to bruising, spontaneous tears, surgical incisions (episiotomies), or in association with operative births (ventouse or forceps assisted births).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of a single administration of paracetamol (acetaminophen) systemic drugs used in the relief of acute postpartum perineal pain

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (December 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing paracetamol (acetaminophen) in a single dose compared with placebo for women with early postpartum perineal pain. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed each paper for inclusion and extracted data. One review author reviewed the decisions and confirmed calculations for pain relief scores.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included 10 studies describing two dosages of paracetamol. Of these, five studies (526 women) assessed 500 mg to 650 mg and six studies (841 women) assessed 1000 mg of paracetamol. We chose to use random-effects meta-analyses because of the heterogeneity in dosage used. Studies were from the 1970s to the early 1990s, and there was insufficient information to assess the risk of bias adequately, hence the findings need to be interpreted within this context.More women experienced pain relief with paracetamol compared with placebo (average risk ratio (RR) 2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.89, 10 studies, 1279 women). In addition, there were significantly fewer women having additional pain relief with paracetamol compared with placebo (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55, eight studies, 1132 women). Both the 500 mg to 650 mg and 1000 mg doses were effective in providing more pain relief than placebo.Maternal and neonatal potential adverse drug effects were not assessed in any of the included studies. Indeed few secondary outcomes were assessed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More women experienced pain relief, and fewer had additional pain relief, with paracetamol compared with placebo, although potential adverse effects were not assessed and generally the quality of studies was unclear.

Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour

BACKGROUND

It is more common for women in the developed world, and those in low-income countries giving birth in health facilities, to labour in bed. There is no evidence that this is associated with any advantage for women or babies, although it may be more convenient for staff. Observational studies have suggested that if women lie on their backs during labour this may have adverse effects on uterine contractions and impede progress in labour.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the review is to assess the effects of encouraging women to assume different upright positions (including walking, sitting, standing and kneeling) versus recumbent positions (supine, semi-recumbent and lateral) for women in the first stage of labour on length of labour, type of delivery and other important outcomes for mothers and babies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing women randomised to upright versus recumbent positions in the first stage of labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for carrying out data collection, assessing study quality and analysing results. A minimum of two review authors independently assessed each study.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 21 studies with a total of 3706 women. Overall, the first stage of labour was approximately one hour shorter for women randomised to upright as opposed to recumbent positions (MD -0.99, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.39). Women randomised to upright positions were less likely to have epidural analgesia (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96).There were no differences between groups for other outcomes including length of the second stage of labour, mode of delivery, or other outcomes related to the wellbeing of mothers and babies. For women who had epidural analgesia there were no differences between those randomised to upright versus recumbent positions for any of the outcomes examined in the review. Little information on maternal satisfaction was collected, and none of the studies compared different upright or recumbent positions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that walking and upright positions in the first stage of labour reduce the length of labour and do not seem to be associated with increased intervention or negative effects on mothers' and babies' wellbeing. Women should be encouraged to take up whatever position they find most comfortable in the first stage of labour.

Immersion in water in labour and birth

BACKGROUND

Enthusiasts suggest that labouring in water and waterbirth increase maternal relaxation, reduce analgesia requirements and promote a midwifery model of care. Sceptics cite the possibility of neonatal water inhalation and maternal/neonatal infection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence from randomised controlled trials about immersion in water during labour and waterbirth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and caregiver outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (October 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any bath tub/pool with no immersion during labour and/or birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted data independently. One review author entered data and another checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 11 trials (3146 women); eight related to the first stage of labour, one to the first and second stages, one to early versus late immersion in the first stage of labour, and another to the second stage. We identified no trials evaluating different baths/pools, or the management of third stage of labour.Results for the first stage of labour showed there was a significant reduction in the epidural/spinal/paracervical analgesia/anaesthesia rate amongst women allocated to water immersion compared to controls (478/1254 versus 529/1245; odds ratio (OR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.98, six trials). There was no difference in assisted vaginal deliveries (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06, seven trials), caesarean sections (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.75, eight trials), perineal trauma or maternal infection. There were no differences for Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.01, five trials), neonatal unit admissions (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.62, three trials), or neonatal infection rates (OR 2.01, 95% CI 0.50 to 8.07, five trials).A lack of data for some comparisons prevented robust conclusions. Further research is needed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that water immersion during the first stage of labour reduces the use of epidural/spinal analgesia. There is limited information for other outcomes related to water use during the first and second stages of labour, due to intervention and outcome variability. There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring in water or waterbirth. The fact that use of water immersion in labour and birth is now a widely available care option for women threatens the feasibility of a large, multicentre randomised controlled trial.

The Pain of Labour

Labour is an emotional experience and involves both physiological and psychological mechanisms.The pain of labour is severe but despite this its memory diminishes with time.Labour pain has two components: visceral pain which occurs during the early first stage and the second stage of childbirth, and somatic pain which occurs during the late first stage and the second stage.The pain of labour in the first stage is mediated by T10 to L1 spinal segments, whereas that in the second stage is carried by T12 to L1, and S2 to S4 spinal segments.Pain relief in labour is complex and often challenging without regional analgesia.Effective management of labour pain plays a relatively minor role in a woman's satisfaction with childbirth.

Evidence-based labor and delivery management

Our objective was to provide evidence-based guidance for management decisions during labor and delivery. We performed MEDLINE, PubMed, and COCHRANE searches with the terms labor, delivery, pregnancy, randomized trials, plus each management aspect of labor and delivery (eg, early admission). Each management step of labor and delivery was reviewed separately. Evidence-based good quality data favor hospital births, delayed admission, support by doula, training birth assistants in developing countries, and upright position in the second stage. Home-like births, enema, shaving, routine vaginal irrigation, early amniotomy, "hands-on" method, fundal pressure, and episiotomy can be associated with complications without sufficient benefits and should probably be avoided. We conclude that labor and delivery interventions supported by good quality data as just described should be routinely performed. All aspects with lower data quality should be researched with adequately powered and designed trials.

Complementary and alternative therapies for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined currently available evidence supporting the use of alternative and complementary therapies for pain management in labour.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of complementary and alternative therapies for pain management in labour on maternal and perinatal morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (February 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2006), EMBASE (1980 to February 2006) and CINAHL (1980 to February 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing complementary and alternative therapies (but not biofeedback) with placebo, no treatment or pharmacological forms of pain management in labour. All women whether primiparous or multiparous, and in spontaneous or induced labour, in the first and second stage of labour were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Meta-analysis was performed using relative risks for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes. The outcome measures were maternal satisfaction, use of pharmacological pain relief and maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included in the review with data reporting on 1537 women using different modalities of pain management; 1448 women were included in the meta-analysis. Three trials involved acupuncture (n = 496), one audio-analgesia (n = 24), two trials acupressure (n = 172), one aromatherapy (n = 22), five trials hypnosis (n = 729), one trial of massage (n = 60), and relaxation (n = 34). The trials of acupuncture showed a decreased need for pain relief (relative risk (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.00, two trials 288 women). Women taught self-hypnosis had decreased requirements for pharmacological analgesia (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.79, five trials 749 women) including epidural analgesia (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.40) and were more satisfied with their pain management in labour compared with controls (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.71, one trial). No differences were seen for women receiving aromatherapy, or audio analgesia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture and hypnosis may be beneficial for the management of pain during labour; however, the number of women studied has been small. Few other complementary therapies have been subjected to proper scientific study.

Immersion in water in pregnancy, labour and birth

BACKGROUND

Enthusiasts for immersion in water during labour, and birth have advocated its use to increase maternal relaxation, reduce analgesia requirements and promote a midwifery model of supportive care. Sceptics are concerned that there may be greater harm to women and/or babies, for example, a perceived risk associated with neonatal inhalation of water and maternal/neonatal infection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence from randomised controlled trials about the effects of immersion in water during pregnancy, labour, or birth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and caregiver outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (September 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing any kind of bath tub/pool with no immersion during pregnancy, labour or birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted data independently. One reviewer entered the data and another checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

: Eight trials are included (2939 women). No trials were identified that evaluated immersion versus no immersion during pregnancy, considered different types of baths/pools, or considered the management of third stage of labour. There was a statistically significant reduction in the use of epidural/spinal/paracervical analgesia/anaesthesia amongst women allocated to water immersion water during the first stage of labour compared to those not allocated to water immersion (odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.99, four trials). There was no significant difference in vaginal operative deliveries (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05, six trials), or caesarean sections (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.91). Women who used water immersion during the first stage of labour reported statistically significantly less pain than those not labouring in water (40/59 versus 55/61) (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.63, one trial). There were no significant differences in incidence of an Apgar score less than 7 at five minutes (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.01), neonatal unit admissions (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.61), or neonatal infection rates (OR 2.01, 95% CI 0.50 to 8.07).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that water immersion during the first stage of labour reduces the use of analgesia and reported maternal pain, without adverse outcomes on labour duration, operative delivery or neonatal outcomes. The effects of immersion in water during pregnancy or in the third stage are unclear. One trial explores birth in water, but is too small to determine the outcomes for women or neonates.